City of St. Peters v. Kodner Development Corp.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DOWD
• Citation: City of St. Peters v. Kodner Development Corp., 509 S.W.2d 788 (Mo. App. 1974)
• Decision Date: 07 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 34997,34997
• Parties: CITY OF ST. PETERS, Missouri, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KODNER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Defendants, Missouri Cities Water Company, Intervenor-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One

Page 788

509 S.W.2d 788

CITY OF ST. PETERS, Missouri, a municipal corporation Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KODNER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Defendants Missouri Cities Water Company, Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 34997.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

May 7, 1974.

Edwards, Seigfried, Runge & Hodge, Inc., Mexico, for defendants-appellants.

Niedner, Moerschel, Nack & Ahlheim, Rollin J. Moerschel, St. Charles, for plaintiff-respondent.

DOWD, Chief Judge.

An annexation case. Missouri Cities Water Company (hereinafter Company) appeals from the granting of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment filed pursuant to the Sawyer Act, Section 71.015, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The City of St. Peter's (hereinafter City) filed an amended petition for a declaratory judgment authorizing the annexation of two parcels of land. Count I of this petition dealt with 1400 acres of land lying east of and adjacent to the City. Count II dealt with 290 acres lying south of and adjacent to the City. The two parcels were not adjacent to each other. The Company was granted permission to intervene. The court only heard Count II of the petition and authorized the annexation of the land described in Count II. The Company has appealed. ¹

The Company's contention we consider first is the Point entitled, 'A Proper Legal Foundation Was Not Laid for Annexation.' Under this Point, the Company asserts that this action was improper because the two parcels were not adjacent to each other; annexation would result in irregular city limits; and, the Resolution of the City to annex was adopted subsequent to the filing of this action contrary to the sequence required by Section 79.020, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The Company has failed to cite and our research failed to uncover any adjacency requirement for annexation other than that the land sought to be annexed be adjacent to the city seeking annexation. Section 79.020; City of St. Ann v. Spanos, 490 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Mo.App.1973). It is apparent from the record that Count II was tried separately, and we have great difficulty determining what possible prejudice may have resulted from a two-count petition involving nonadjacent parcels of land. There is no prohibition of such a procedure either from legislation or judicial interpretation. Consequently, we must rule against the Company on this assertion.

One of the factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of a proposal annexation is whether it makes the city's boundaries more regular. This is not a requisite, however, and the fact that the incident proposal would not accomplish more regular boundaries does not mandate a judgment against annexation.

The Company's assertion of improper sequence of events is not supported by the record. The City's original petition involved only the 1400 acres and was filed February 14, 1972 pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Peters approved January 18, 1972. The Board then approved a second resolution on July 11, 1972 which included both the 1400 acre parcel and the 290 acre parcel. The City filed an amended petition pursuant to the latter resolution on July 17, 1972. (There is no indication that the Company opposed this amendment). We believe the procedure followed to be proper.

A second Point in the Company's brief we consider is denominated, 'The Annexation of Land Should Be Infrequent.' While this Point falls short of the requirements of Rule 84.04(d), we have nevertheless chosen to consider the Company's arguments on the merits. The frequency of annexation, like the regularity of boundaries, is only a factor to be weighed in determining reasonableness and is not conclusive.

The crux of the Company's argument is that the City failed to prove that the annexation of this 290 acres was reasonable and necessary. A court hearing a Sawyer Act case does not substitute its own judgment of what is reasonable and necessary for that of the legislative body proposing the annexation. City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson, 312 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Mo.1958). The trial court found the proposed annexation to be reasonable and necessary.

'For us to reach a different conclusion we must be able to say (1) the reasonableness of the legislative decision of the (City Board of Aldermen) is not even fairly debatable, (City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson, 312 S.W.2d 4, 7, 8 (Mo.1958)), (2) the (Company) has carried its burden of showing that the (City) action was unreasonable,...